key concepts in e l t

Blended learning
Pete Sharma

Background Blended learning (BL) is a buzz word in language teaching. However, it

has been in use for almost 20 years and its meaning has been constantly
changing during this period (Sharpe, Benfield, Roberts, and Francis 2006:
18).
It was first used in the corporate world to refer to a course designed to allow
workers to both continue in the workplace and study. Rather than taking
time out on a residential seminar, training was delivered via (for example)
self-study manuals, videos, and the web. BL was in part adopted as a cost-
saving measure (see Driscoll 2002).

Definitions In the world of education, three definitions of BL are especially relevant.

Definition 1: The integrated combination of traditional learning with web based on-line
a combination of approaches (Oliver and Trigwell 2005: 17). This is, arguably, the classic
face-to-face and definition of the term. Traditional learning here is classroom teaching or
online teaching face-to-face language lessons. The delivery of the online part of the course is
usually through learning technologies, typically involving a Virtual
Learning Environment (VL E) such as Blackboard or Moodle and
comprising the use of synchronous and asynchronous electronic tools, such
as, respectively, chat and bulletin boards.

Definition 2: The combination of media and tools employed in an e-learning

a combination of environment (ibid.: 17). This definition could describe a purely distance
technologies learning course, where no face-to-face lessons occur. Communication
between the learner and e-tutor may take place through any number of
technologies, such as email and internet telephone.

Definition 3: The combination of a number of pedagogic approaches, irrespective of the

a combination of learning technology used (ibid.: 17). A course that combines transmission
methodologies and constructivist approaches would fit into this category, such as one
involving elements of a present-practice-produce methodology as well as
task-based learning.
The term continues to develop. A further possible conceptualization of BL is
as a combination of real world plus in-world, where a teacher delivers
a face-to-face lesson and then arranges to meet his or her student for
a follow-up class in a virtual world such as Second Life (Claypole 2010: 36).

456 E LT Journal Volume 64/4 October 2010; doi:10.1093/elt/ccq043

The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Advance Access publication July 14, 2010
 Furthermore, computer-assisted language learning in general has been
described as context specific (Levy and Stockwell 2006: 234), and a number
of local uses of the term BL also exist within various educational settings,
both national and institutional. For example, as some governments switch
from coursebooks to CD Rom or web-based material, the term has been
applied to the blending (or combination) of print and digital materials.
There are also a number of dimensions associated with definitions of BL,
such as breadth and connotation.

Breadth Claypole (2003: 169) has argued that BL is nothing new and is indeed the
logical development of prior tendencies involving the mixing of methods of
teaching. A similar broad interpretation of the term states that BL is
a combination of the face-to-face part of a course and an appropriate use of
technology (Sharma and Barrett 2007: 7, my italics). On the other hand,
a narrow definitionfor example blending face-to-face plus web-based
learningexcludes the use of CD Rom and other technologies and
therefore could be seen as excessively restrictive.

Connotation The term BL is used both positively and disparagingly. Thus, a 1 + 1 is more
than 2 argument assumes a positive connotation, i.e. combining the best of
the teacher with the best of the technology will deliver improved learning
outcomes. On the other hand, a negative connotation can be assumed where
there may be no thought-through pedagogical relation between parts of the
blend, so that the course may appear to lack coherence.

The practice of BL One of the main factors involved in running a BL course is a consideration of
the appropriateness of each medium of course delivery and the related
matching of the delivery type to the learning activity. Thus, the face-to-face
part of the course might develop student fluency through in-class
discussion, while the electronic bulletin board component might develop
learners critical thinking skills. However, in practice, of course, students
may favour one of the delivery modes (face-to-face or online) to the
detriment of the other.
Putting BL into practice can involve a variety of approaches, such as the
following:
n Teachers can issue learners with a password to their class VLE or wiki
(an editable website that can be used for collaborative activities), allowing
24/7 access to digital materials that support classroom work: a dual track
approach.
n A teacher could set homework assignments based on a CD Rom that
accompanies the coursebook. Students use technology to do specific tasks
between the face-to-face classes, to prepare or consolidate: an integrated
approach.
How the use of the term BL might develop in the future is not clear.
Westbrook (2008: 13) has argued that it may be becoming diluted because
the large number of definitions it has attracted means that almost any
approach can be defined as BL. The term may therefore become redundant.
However, BL is likely to remain an important concept in language teaching
since its overall focus is concerned with the search for best practice, i.e. the

Blended learning 457

 attempt to identify the optimum mix of course delivery in order to provide
the most effective language learning experience.

References Sharpe, R., G. Benfield, G. Roberts, and R. Francis.

Claypole, M. 2003. Blended learning: new resources 2006. The Undergraduate Experience of Blended
for teaching business English in A. Pulverness (ed.). E-learning: A Review of UK Literature and Practice.
I AT E F L Brighton Conference Selections. Whitstable, Available at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/
UK: IATEF L. York/documents/ourwork/research/
Claypole, M. 2010. Controversies in E LT. What You literature_reviews/
Always Wanted to Know about Teaching English but blended_elearning_exec_summary_1.pdf (accessed
Were Afraid to Ask. Norderstedt: LinguaBooks/BoD. on 5 July 2009).
Driscoll, M. 2002. Blended Learning: Lets Get Beyond Westbrook, K. 2008. The beginning of the end for
the Hype. Available at http://www-07.ibm.com/ blended learning?. IATEF L CALL Review
services/pdf/blended_learning.pdf (accessed on Summer 2008: 1215.
5 July 2010).
Levy, M. and G. Stockwell. 2006. C AL L Dimensions: The author
Options and Issues in Computer-Assisted Language Pete Sharma is currently working as a Lecturer in
Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. E A P. He is a Director of Pete Sharma Associates,
Oliver, M. and K. Trigwell. 2005. Can Blended a training organization. He is the co-author of
Learning be redeemed?. E-learning 2/1: 1726. Blended Learning (Macmillan 2007). See also
Sharma, P. and B. Barrett. 2007. Blended Learning: http://www.psa.eu.com/
Using Technology in and Beyond the Language Email: pete.sharma@btopenworld.com
Classroom. Oxford: Macmillan.

458 Pete Sharma